Skip to main content

Full text of "Tabakat I Nasiri AGeneral History Of The Muhammadan Dynasties Of Asia Including Hindustan Volume 1"

See other formats

A General History of the 

Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia including Hindustan 
from A.H, 194 (810 A.D.) to A.H. 658 (1260 A.D.) and the 
Irruption of the Infidel Mughals into Islam 

Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Dm 
Abu-’ Umar-i-‘ Usman 

AhleSunnah Library ( ^ 

Translated From 

Original Persian Manuscripts by 

Major H G Raverty 







From A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], to A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.], 





Translated from Original Persian Manuscripts. 



Author of a Grammar, a Dictionary, and The Gulshan-i-Roh, or Selections, 
Prose and Poetical, in the Pu|hto or Afghan Language ; The Poetry 
of the Afghans (English Translation) ; The Fables of iEsop 
Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language ; The Pushto or 
Afghan Manual ; Notes on Afghanistan, 

Geographical, Ethnographical, 
and Historical, etc. 

YOL. I. 

Eottfcon : 



In 1865 I was led to read the printed text of the Taba^at- 
i-Na§iri, published at Calcutta in 1864, in search of materials 
towards a history of the Afghans and their country, which 
is very much mixed up with that of India. 

Having gone through a great portion of it, and finding 
it defective in many places, and full of errors, I thought it 
advisable to examine the India Office Library MS.> No. 
1952, from which the printed text was said to have been 
taken, went through the whole of that work, and found that 
it also was defective, and contained numerous errors. I 
found nothing, however, respecting the Afghans, except in 
one place, and there they were briefly mentioned in a few 
lines, but very characteristically. 

I had already discovered, when in search of other mate- 
rials, what lamentable errors the available Histories of 
India, so called, in the English language contained, and I 
now found how they had arisen. With a view of correct- 
ing them, I made a translation of those portions of the 
Tabakat-i-Na§iri which related to India, and the History 
of the Ghaznawi and Ghuri dynasties : and, when I offered 
a translation to the Bengal Asiatic Society some twelve 
years ago, my intention was, as stated in my letter on the 
subject, merely to have made a fair copy of the translation 
of those identical portions. 

Soon after, I obtained a yery old copy of the work ; and, 
on comparing it with the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, I found 
such considerable and important differences to exist, that 
I determined to begin anew, and translate the whole work. 

The Society having accepted my offer, and the defective 

state of the printed text being well known, Mr. Arthur 
Grote, to whom I am very greatly indebted for assistance^ 
in many ways, advised that, in making this translation, I 
should avail myself of any other copies of the text that 
might be procurable in Europe. On instituting inquiry the 
following were found, and have been already referred to in 
my report to the Society, published in the “ Proceedings ” 
for February, 1873, and have been used by me in my task. 

I must here give a brief description of them, and notice 
and number them according to theijr apparent age and 
value, which arrangement, however, will be somewhat 
different from that in the notes to pages 68 and 77 of the 
translated text. 

1. A MS . belonging to the St. Petersburg Imperial 
Public Library. 

This, probably, is the most ancient of the copies col- 
lated. It is not written in an elegant hand, by any 
means, although plainly and correctly, but in the style in 
which Mullas usually write. The dais are marked with 
diacritical points, and other letters are written in a peculiar 
manner, denoting considerable antiquity. It is, however, 
imperfect, and does not comprise much more than half the 

2. The British Museum MS. No. Add. 26, 189. 

This copy is considered by Doctor Rieu, whose exper 
rience is sufficiently great, and authority undoubted, to be 
a MS. of the fourteenth century. It is clearly written and 
correct, and has been of the utmost use to me. It wants a 
few pages at the end, hence the date on which it was com- 
pleted, and by whom written, which generally are inserted 
at the end, cannot be discovered. 

3. The old MS. in my possession. 

To judge from the writing and paper, I should suppose 
it to be about the same age as No. 2. It is clearly written, 
but wants several pages at the end, consequently, the date 
of its completion likewise cannot be discovered. One 
pretty good proof of its age, however, is that the whole, from 
beginning to end, has been cut close to the illuminated 
borders of each leaf, and inlaid on other paper, which also 
appears to be of considerable age. Whoever did this 
turned a number of leaves the wrong way, and misplaced 



several pages, which took me some time to put in their 
places again. 

I imagine that there is very little difference, in point of 
antiquity, between these three copies. 

4. A MS. belonging to the Imperial Academy of Sciences 
at St. Petersburg. 

This is a well and correctly written MS., which has also 
been of the greatest use to me in my work. It wants about 
two leaves at the end, and, consequently, the date on which 
it was copied does not appear. I should say, comparing it 
with the others above described, that it is a MS. of 
the sixteenth century, possibly, still earlier. It has an 
unreadable name on the last leaf, with 1218 H. [1803 A.D.] 
upon it. 

5. The India Office Library MS., No. 1952. 

This is also a plainly written copy, and, apparently, of 
considerable age, nearly as old, possibly, as the three copies 
first named, but it is incorrect in scores of places : one place 
in particular, where three complete pages of the history of 
Sultan Mas’ud of Ghaznin occur in the middle of the ac- 
count of the Saljuks. This is important, although an error, 
because it shows us how many other copies have been taken 
from it, or that it, and the other copies hereafter to be 
named, were all copied from another, still earlier, MS. 
imperfect in that identical place. 

This MS. is, in all probability, that, referred to by 
Stewart, as belonging to Tlpu’s library, and said to have 
been “copied by the author himself.” The reason why 
this, too, has been erroneously considered “ an autograph of 
the author's” is simply this — whoever copied it, as in the 
case of other copies, neither recorded his own name, nor the 
place where, or date when, it was completed, and so it ter- 
minates in the author's own words, hence some people have 
run away with the idea — and it only shows upon what a 
shadow they often found their theories — that the author 
himself must have written it. It ends thus : — “ The book 
of Al-Minhaj bin Saraj, the 5th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal — the 
third month — in the year fifty and six hundred.” The eight, 
which should have preceded the fifty, has been left out. 
On the first leaf the following is written : “ The Tabakat- 
i-Na§iri, in the city of IJaidar-abad, in the month of Rabi'- 



ul-Awwal, 1 1 57 H. [1744 A.D.], was bought of the booksellers 
in that place.” 

6 and 7. Two MSS. in the Paris National Library. 

These may be classed, at least the best of the two, with 
the preceding MS., N o. 5, in point of date, and want of correct- 
ness ; and I believe that they are either copies of No. 5, or, 
like it and two others— the Bodleian MS., and the Ro. 
Asiatic Soc. MS.— copies of the same identical MS. They 
all agree as to errors, 1 and they all end in - the same way, 
without the name of the scribe, the date, or place where 
copied, with the single exception of the Bodleian copy, 
which has the word “ eight ” written over the words “ fifty 
and six hundred.” For the reasons above-mentioned, both 
Paris MSS . — not one only, I find — were fondly considered 
“ autographs of the author's but M. H. Zotenberg, whose 
opinion I asked, very justly says, “ this is impossible, because 
the two MS. are not in the same handwriting.” He, how- 
ever, adds, “but to judge from the paper and the writing, 
I should suppose that they are both MSS. of the fifteenth 
century. They were both brought from India.” They 
came from the Dakhan, in all probability. 

8 and 9. The other copy of the text in the British 
Museum, No. Add. 25,785, which Doctor Rieu considers 
may be of the sixteenth century, and another belonging to 
the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg. These 
are, comparatively, modern copies, of the first half of the 
seventeenth century in all likelihood. They are plainly 
written, but are neither of them very correct. The former 
is defective to the extent of seven or eight 8vo. pages at 
the end, and the other also wants a few leaves. They are 
neither of them of much value. 

10. A MS. formerly in the Library of Haileybury 

This is the most complete MS. of the text that I have 
met with, although it is of comparatively recent date. It 
is written in a plain, but not elegant hand. It is generally 
correct, and closely agrees with Nos. 2, 3, and 4 ; and I 
have found it exceedingly useful. Indeed without it, and 

1 See Notes 9 , page 308 ; 3 , page 376 ; 2 ? page 400 . page 4z6 . 2j page 
573 J 7 » page 577 ; and particularly page 665, note 8 ; page 684, note *; note 
page 692 ; and page 703 ; in which some of .these are pointed out. 



Nos. 2, 3, and 4, I never could have completed my 
task satisfactorily. In a few places it supplied what 
was defective in two of the others. The date of copying 
is not given, but, from its appearance, I should say it was 
a MS . of the last half of the seventeenth century. After 
the author's concluding words the following is written : — 
“ The owner of this MS., in the port [Bandar] of Surat, 
[is] the Haji, Muhammad Sharif, son of Mulla Muhammad 
Sharif son of Mulla Muhammad Tahir after which follow 
some words not quite intelligible, “ on the 8th of Sha’ban — 
the eighth month — 1 1 13 H. [1701-1702, A.D.], was recorded." 
The two last words appear to refer rather to the date the 
owner wrote his name, than to the date the MS. was com- 
pleted. It subsequently belonged to some Grandee of the 
Mughal empire, from the titles given under the above 
record, namely, “ The Mumtaz-ud-Daulah, Mufa khkh ar- ul- 
Mulk, Husam-i-Jang” Who he was I am unable to say. 

11. The copy of the text formerly belonging to the late 
Colonel G. W. Hamilton, C.B., in the collection of the late 
Earl of Crawfurd and Balcarres. This is, upon the whole, the 
worst copy I have collated, and contains very numerous 
errors, although, in point of age, it may be older than Nos. 8,9, 
and 10. It terminates abruptly at page 462 of the Printed 
Text, and is thus defective to the extent of about twenty- 
six pages, but it has the closing page, and when and where 
written. Before I saw it, I was informed that it was a very 
valuable copy, and that it had belonged to “ the Emperor 
Shah Jahan, because his seal was stamped on the margin 
of one of the pages." On examination, I found that the 
MS. was completed “ on Thursday, the 6th of Rajab — the 
seventh month — of the year 1059 H. [July, 1649], in the 
reign of the Second Sahib-i-Kiran, Abu-l-Muzafifar, Shihab- 
ud-Din, Muhammad, Shah-i-Jahan, Badshah-i- Ghazf T in 
the city of Burhanpur [in Kandes], at the time when hosti- 
lities broke out between that monarch and Shah ’Abbas 
the Second [the Safawi ruler of I-ran], respecting Kanda- 
har [the Kizil-bashis were then actually investing that 
stronghold],’’ and that the copyist was the Khanah-zad-i- 
Dargah [the born slave of the Court or Household], Mu’in- 
ud-Dln, Khwajah-i-T ahan. the Jahan-giri,” [of the Household 
of Jahangir Badshah], Shah-i-Jahan Badshah’s father. 



Beneath this again is the name of a Maulawi, the son of 
some “ Khan.” partly obliterated, with the date 1255 H. 
[1839 A.D.]. A seal underneath. bears the date 1233 H. 
[1818 A.D.]. The largest seal, supposed to be that of 
Shah-i-Jahan Badshah, bears the following inscription : — 
“ Mu’in-ud-Din, Muhammad [the same person as referred 
to above], ghulam-i-Shah-i- T ahan ” with the figures 24, 
referring to the year of that monarch’s reign, and the year 
1061 H. [it began Dec. 14th, 1650, A.D.], A smaller seal, 
with an inscription— 1 “ Ya Mu’in”— “O Helper !” — bears 
date 1058 H. [1648 A.D.]. I could discover nothing to show 
that the MS . had ever belonged to Shah-i-Jahan Badshah. 

12. The MS . belonging to the Royal Asiatic Society. 
This, as previously mentioned, is a modern copy, of the 
latter part of the seventeenth century possibly, and is 
either a copy of No. 5, or copied from the same MS. that 
that was copied from. It is pretty plainly but carelessly 
written, in, by no means, a good hand ; but, like the others 
referred to, is very defective, and the proper names of 
persons and places are often without any points. 

1 have already noticed how incorrect the Printed Text 
is. In the Preface to it, Colonel W. N. Lees, LL.D., says : 
“ When I commenced the work, we had three copies, one 
belonging to the Ro. Asiastic Soc., one in the India House 
Library, and one belonging to the High Priest of the Parsfs 
at Bombay. A little while afterwards, Colonel Hamilton, 
in reply to a circular of the Society, forwarded a copy from 
Dehli. These MSS. are all apparently good old copies, 
and are written in very different hands. It was supposed, 
then, that we had four distinct copies to collate ; but, before 
long, it became apparent that the four had been copied 
from two MSS ., 2 so, in reality, we had only two. . . . The 
Society had issued hundreds of circulars to all parts of 
India, and had failed to draw out more than two copies ; 
and the fact, that the four old copies I had had been copied 

2 In this case, if the Ro. As. Sotfs MS. is a copy of the India Office MS., 
the Hamilton MS., and the High Priest's, must be copies one of the other, or 
copies from another MS. 

Sir Henry Elliot mentions that he found one in the Royal Library at 
Lakhnao, but most of the MSS. in that collection were, I believe, destroyed 
during the rebellion of 1857. 



from two MSS,, seemed to indicate so clearly the great 
scarcity of MSS . of this work, that I decided to go on.” 

From these remarks its defectiveness is not to be won- 
dered at, but, at the same time, as I have shown in my 
notes, there are numerous errors in it which are not to be 
found in these MSS., and a little historical and geographi- 
cal discrimination on the part of the editors might have 
corrected many of them. 

The time and labour required for simply translating a 
book, especially if but one or two copies be used for colla- 
tion, is not very great ; and this translation could have been 
accomplished in a tithe of the time I have devoted to it. 
But, as this History is one of the four most important 
works with respect to the early rulers of India, and that 
part of Central Asia upon which all eyes have been lately 
turned, and are likely to be turned in the future, I thought 
it advisable not to spare any pains on it, although it has 
occupied some years longer than I anticipated. I have 
collated nine copies of the text word for word ; and all 
doubtful passages have been collated for me from the other 
three. Although this has occupied a great deal of time, 
and entailed much labour, a still greater amount of both has 
been expended on the notes, which I deemed necessary to 
illustrate our author’s often brief, sometimes erroneous, but 
generally valuable, statements, to point out the errors which 
he has sometimes fallen ' into, and to point out some of the 
legion of lamentable mistakes, and misleading statements, 
contained in compilations purporting to be “ Histories of 
India,” “ Histories of Afghanistan from the Earliest Times,” 
and similar Histories of other Eastern states and peoples ; 
and to show the exact value of the compilations, turned 
out by the yard by raw hands, for the Public of the news- 
papers and reviews, and the general reader. 

These errors in Indian History are solely attributable to 
the miscalled translations of the comparatively modern 
chronicle, known as the Tarildi-i-Firishtah by Dow and 
Briggs, the first of whom could not possibly have under- 
stood the words of the writer in scores of places, and in 
such cases appears to have recorded his own ideas instead 
of the author’s statements. Firishtah’s work, too, is not, 
difficult, and the style is simple ; and it is one of a few books 



well adapted for the Lower Standard of Examination in 
the Persian language. Firishtah’s materials were chiefly 
taken from the Tabakat-i-Akbari, also known as the 
Tabakat-i-Akbar Shahi, of the Khwaiah. Nizam-ud-D!n, 
Ahmad, who obtained his materials, up to the reign of 
Ghivas-ud-Din. Balban, from the work of our author ; and 
not a single event is recorded in Firishtah that is not 
recorded in the Tabakat-i-Akbari. This will be quite clear 
to any one who will take the trouble to compare them. 
Firishtah, indeed, follows it so closely that, not only are the 
poetical quotations appropriated, but the errors also, as I 
have pointed out in my notes, have been faithfully copied 
by the Dakhani author : where the one errs the other is 
sure to follow. 3 

The English version of Briggs, “ the admirable version 
as a writer, who did not know the contents of Firishtah, 
calls it, is clearly based upon Dow’s, with very slight altera- 
tions, and they are chiefly of a verbal kind. I should be 
sorry to be unjust to any author, but I submit that, where 
great, misleading, and glaring, historical errors, are as clear 
as the light of day, it is a duty towards the public, and in 
the interests of science, that they should be pointed out, 
even at the risk of “ hurting the susceptibilities ” of the 
authors of them or their friends, especially when such per- 
nicious compilations as I have referred to, under the name 
of history, continue to be used in our colleges and schools, 
without the nature of them being known in its true light. 
The writers of them have much to answer for, but those 
who have adopted them in our public institutions a vast deal 
more. See, for example, note 4 , page 312, and note, page 
323 - 

One of the most glaring of the misstatements I refer to is 
that wherein the Turk sovereigns of Ghaznin, as well as 
the Tajzik rulers of Ghur, are turned into “ Pathdns ” 
or “ Afghans,” which words are synonymous, and “ Pa- 
thins” or “Afghans” into Turks and Tajzik Ghuris. 
Dow, in the first place, is to blame for this, but Briggs 
blindly followed him. 5 I say this advisedly. The proof is 

3 A few examples of which may be seen in Note », page 441 ; and ! , page 
653 ; last para, of Note «, page 665 ; », page 697; and \ page 711. 

1 Examples of this will be found in Notes 3 , page 204; 3 , page 312; *, 

PREFACE. xiii 

easy from any MS. of Firishtah’s work, but with MSS 4 
alone we need not rest content. We have only to compare 
Briggs’s version with that lithographed edition printed at 
Bombay, to which Briggs put his name as editor and 
reviser, to prove my words* 

Let us, for example, take any passage in Briggs’ account 
of the Ghuris. or the history of the Turkish slave Sultans 
of Dihl! — those, say, referred to at page 508 of this work 
— and in the Persian text which, according to the title- 
page, had the benefit of his editing and revision, not one 
word will be found respecting their being Afghans, as con- 
tained in his “ admirable translation : ” all comes from 

If this Translation of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, the 
original of which was published just six hundred and twenty- 
one years ago, and the notes accompanying it, disperse 
to the winds this error-bubble alone, I shall deem my time 
not lost, and the labour of years not thrown away, because, 
even since the publication of Sir H. Elliot’s extracts from 
various Histories, which also showed how incorrect this 
“Pathan ” theory was, Turks, Tajzik Ghuris* Turkish Slaves, 
Jats, Sayyids, and others, continue to figure under the ridi- 
culous name of “ Pathdn dynasties,” up to this present day* 6 

I have already remarked that our author has mentioned 
the Afghans but once in his History, and that very briefly, 
but, at the same time, most graphically [page 852], a body 
of them being in the pay of the Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam. 
The Afghans were by no means unfamiliar to our author, 
and he certainly knew the Ghuris better than any other 
author known to us, and he shows on that very page that 
they were a totally different race. In his account of the 
Shansabanis of Ghur, and their dynasties, he simply stands 
unrivalled, and also in his accounts of the first Mughal inva- 
sions of the territories between Hirat and Multan. The Af- 
ghans appear at this time to have begun to take service under 
the Muhammadan feudatories of the western border pro- 
vinces of the Dihl! kingdom. They may have been in the 

page 320 ; note 7 , para. 4, page 321 ; note a , page 404; ", page 431 ; note 

page 441 ; note 4 , page 514 ; and \ para. 5, page 794. 

6 See the “Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society,” Part I., No. II., pr. 
j88q, page 18. 



habit of taking such service previously, but to no great ex- 
tent I imagine, but, about this period, there was a particular 
reason for it — the confusion and convulsions caused through- 
out the vast tracts of country which formed the kingdom 
of the Ghaznawis and their subverters the Ghuris, styled 
Afghanistan by Europeans chiefly, through the irruptions, 
devastations, massacres, and final subversion of the Musal- 
man rule by the hordes of infidel Mughals, by whom the 
country of the A fgh ans was completely surrounded on the 
north, south, and west, while the only territory still held by 
a Musalman sovereign lay on the east — the Panj-ab — the 
western part of which also subsequently fell under the 
Mu gh al yoke. The limits of the true A fgh anistan were pre- 
scribed by the mountains bounding the Kurma’h valley and 
the territory of Kabul on the north, the Koh-i-Surkh on the 
south, the territories of Ghaznln and Kandahar on the west, 
and the Sulimanl mountains or Koh-i-Siyah on the east. 

It will be observed that I have really commenced the 
Translation from Section VII.; and from that point it em- 
braces the whole work. The first six, with the exception 
of the History of the early kings of I-ran, are not of much 
importance by reason of their brevity. The account of the 
I-rani dynasties, which would require a volume to illustrate 
them, I have treated as a separate work, which, ere long, 
may see the light. To make the Translation in effect 
complete, however, I have given an abstract of the first six 

The adulations addressed to, and constant prayers offered 
up for, the Sultan to whom the author dedicated, and after 
whom he named, his History, have been omitted or greatly 
reduced, and some of the introductions to the Sections 
also, which are of a similar style, have been cut short, but, 
in all other cases, I have not “ compressed ” the Trans- 
lation in the least degree ; and I may say that I have 
weighed every word and sentence, and have omitted 
nothing, not even the poetical quotations, having only 
rejected some of the longer portions when they have 
been of no interest, not necessary to the text, or of no 
particular merit. I have endeavoured to render the trans- 
lation as nearly as possible in the author’s own words, 
without being slavishly* literal. It is however sufficiently 



literal to assist a student, and yet readable by the English 
reader, though keeping much of a foreign complexion for 
various reasons. It is possible that in so long a work, 
published at intervals as completed, and not in a com- 
plete form at once, slight inconsistencies in punctuation 
and English (though not Persian, save through printers’ 
errors) orthography may be here and there observable. 
Most English punctuation is haphazard, and left to the 
compositors, who, apparently, sometimes use it to denote 
breathing pauses; sometimes to help out the grammar. 
One may point sentences very much or very little, but 
whatever is done should be upon one system. Accordingly 
here, for the most part, the minute plan of what may 
seem to some over-much stopping is adopted, though not 
always, but no such absurdity is allowed to appear as a 
divorce of the verb from its subject by a single comma, 
and other errors of that sort, which come of printers attend- 
ing entirely to pause and forgetting grammar. 

Scholars will understand that there may be much to be 
said for more ways than one of spelling the same word in 
such a language as English. 

This book, the text and notes together, will be found to be 
a very thesaurus of the most varied and often recondite his- 
torical material for the periods of which it treats, and many 
time-honoured historical errors have been pointed out and 
rectified. It wants but one thing to make it still more accept- 
able to the Student,- and that is an Index. The Reviewers 
are tolerably sure to point this out for fear nobody else 
should see it. So the Translator begs to say, once for all, 
that he is too weary, and his time too valuable, to take 
up any such work. Meanwhile, The Index Society will 
have here a capital tough subject for their charitable 

Besides the standard Histories mentioned in note 2 , 
page 869, the following, among which are many rare, cele- 
brated, and excellent, works, have been also used ; and some 
of them have been extensively drawn upon. The majority, 
but not all, have been mentioned in the notes taken from 
them. From “the labours of ” these authors “my prede- 
cessors” I have derived the utmost “assistance,” and 
acknowledge it accordingly. 






Nizam-ut-Tawarikh of the 
Kazi, Abu-Sa’id-i-’ Abd- 
ullah of Baiza, 
Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of the 
Shaikh. Abu -1- Hasan- i- 
Ali,surnamed Ibn-ul-Asir, 
Khulasat - ut - Tawarikh of 
Sujan Rae, 

Mir’at-i-J ahan-Numa, 
Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi of Zi* 
ya-ud-Din, Barani, 
Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi of 
Tarikh-i-Rashidi of the Mir- 
za, Muhammad Haidar, 
the Doghlati Mughal, 
Memoirs of Humayun Bad- 
shah by Bayazid the Byat, 

Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of 
the Buda’uni, , 

Akbar Namah of Fai?! the 

Tagkirat-ul-Abrar of the 
Akhund. Darwezah, 
Makhzan-i- Afghani, 
Tarikh-i-Khan-i-Tahan, the 



Sair - ul - Bilad — a Persian 
Translation of the Agar- 



Chachh Namah, 
Tarikh-us-Sind of Mir Ma- 
’sum, the Bakhari, 

Ifebal Namah-i-Jahan-girl, 
Ma’adan - i - Akhbar - i - Aft - 

Tazkirat-ul-Muluk of Yahya 

Jami’-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir 

Tarikh-i^Rajahahe Jammu, 
History of Gaur or Lakhan- 
awati of §biam Parshad, 
and a few others. 

The following Pu|hto or Afghan Chronicles have also 
been used ' The History of theKhasfai sept of the Afghan 
nation, and their conquests beyond the river of Kabul, by 
Ehwaju, the Matizi ; the Tarikh-i-Nisbat-i-Afaghinah. by 
the Shaikh, ’Abd-ur-Razzak, Matizi; and the Tariji-i- 
Murasga’ by Muhammad Af ? al Shan, Kkatak. 

I cannot close these remarks without’ tendering my 
sincere thanks to Doctor C. Rieu, Keeper of the Oriental 

Manuscripts of the British Museum, for his kind and 
efficient assistance at all times, also to Professor Alois 
Sprenger of Wabern near Bern, and to Monsieur H. Zoten- 
berg of the French National Library, who very kindly 
collated numerous passages for me. 

The system of transliteration, adopted in the following 
pages, is that known as the system of Sir William Jones, 
which, after some thirty years’ experience, the Translator 
conceives to be the easiest, as well as the most natural* and 
as easy of pronunciation [except, perhaps, the purely ’Arabic 
gutturals] as the original letters of the ’Arabic alphabet. 

The vowels are three short — a, i, u, equivalent to — 

— and — ; and three long — a, !, u, equivalent to 1 — tj — * 
All consonants, except the following, are pronounced 
precisely the same as in English : — i±> s, as th in thing, or 
lisped s ; ^ — ch, as ch in church ; ^ — h, strongly aspi- 
rated, which occurs only in purely ’Arabic words ; ^ — kh, 
as ch in loch, and as German ch ; 3 — d, pronounced by 
applying the tip of the tongue inverted to the palate ; i — 
z, as th in thine, by ’Arabs, dth ; J — r, as r uttered by 
striking the point of the tongue on the palate ; j — jz, as s 
in pleasure, or soft French j ; <_£ — sh, as sk in shell ; <jp — s, 
as ss in dissolve ; — z, as dwd ; L — t, as t with a slight 

aspiration; k — z, as English z with a slight aspiration; 
c — \ a deep guttural without any audible aspiration, 
and, when initial to a word, the ’ is placed before its vowel, 
as in ’All, and, when not initial, after its preceding vowel, 
as in Ja’far and Rafi’ ; ^ gh, a guttural sound like that 
produced in gargling, or Northumbrian r, and something 
similar to gh in ghost ; j — k, another peculiar ’Arabic 
sound, produced by pressing back the root of the tongue 
to the throat, and partaking of the sound of k and q; »— h, 
slightly aspirated ; at the end of a word it is often un- 
aspirated. When e occurs at the end of a word preceded 
by a, the former is almost quiescent. The only diphthongs 
are ai and an. 

From the above system the scholar can at once tell the 
original letters in the names of persons and places. Unless 
the peculiar letters are marked there is no knowing what 
they are meant for. For example; if the equivalent of ^ 




is not marked, we cannot tell whether the original was • or 
the two letters ctf and * ; and if the roman equivalents^" of 
y*, and ^ are all rendered by simple “ s,” how are we to 
know which is the letter meant ? 

As the work is rather more bulky than was anticipated 
at the outset, and may be perhaps more convenient in two 
volumes than in one, I have provided for binding it up into 
two volumes by giving two separate title-pages, as it can 
be conveniently divided at the commencement of Section 
XXII., page 719. 

Rock House, 

Milverton, Somerset, 

1 2th January, 1881 a.d. 12th Safar, 1298 H. 



Few materials exist for a notice of our author, and these 
are chiefly furnished by himself. 

The first mention he makes of his family is to the effect 
that “ the Imam, 'Abd-ul-Khalik, the Turjani. having, in his 
early manhood, dreamt a dream on three successive occa- 
sions, urging him to proceed to Ghaznin and seek a wife, 
set out thither ; and, subsequently, obtained, in marriage, 
one of the forty daughters of Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin,” 
who was in the habit of bestowing his daughters, in mar- 
riage, upon reverend and pious Sayyids and 'Ulama, like 
other Musalman rulers have continued to do, down to recent 

By this wife, 'Abd-ul-Khalik had a son, whom he named 
Ibrahim, after his maternal grandfather, the Sultan ; and 
he was our author's great-grandfather. He was the father 
of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Usman, who was the father 
of the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muhammad — who is called 
Ibrahim by some — who was known by the title of 'Ujubat- 
uz-Zaman — The Wonder of the Age. He was the father 
of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din , 1 Abu-’Umar-i-’ Usman, the 
author of the following History, who thence often brings in 
his father’s and grandfather’s name, styling himself Minhaj- 
i-Saraj-i-Minhaj, the two izdfats being used to signify son 
of in place of the Arabic bin . 

Our author's ancestors, on both sides, for several gene- 
rations, appear to have been ecclesiastics of repute, and men 

1 The title, Saraj-ud-Din, means “The Lamp, or the Luminary of the 

Faith,” and Minhaj-ud-Din, “The High-road, or the Way of the Faith.” See 
note 2 , page 1295. 

a 2 



distinguished for learning. He states that he possessed, 
among the misal or diplomas granted to his maternal 
ancestors by the Kh ali fahs, one from the Khalifah, Mustazi 
B’illah, conferring the Kazi-ship of the fortress, or rather, 
fortified town, of Tulak, described in the following pages, 
together with that over the Kuhistan, and the Jibal — 
Highlands— of Hirat, upon his maternal grandfather, in 
conformity with the diploma previously held by the latter’s 
father before him. His paternal grandfather also received 
an honorary dress from the same Pontiff ; and our author 
says that he himself possessed the diploma which was sent 
along with it. 

In the oldest copies of the text, and in several of the 
more recent, our author almost invariably styles himself 1 the 
Jurjani’ — — as I have from the outset rendered it ; but 
those MSS. previously referred to, which appear to have 
been copied from the same source as that from which 
the I.O.L. MS. was taken, or from that copy itself, gene- 
rally have — Juzani — and sometimes Jurjani as above. 

If the point of j — z— be left out, as is very liable to be 
the case, like the points of other letters, by copyists, it is 
but simple j — r. Words containing long u — } — are often 
written with the short vowel zavtmah or pesh — J — instead 
of j — and hence, in some few copies, it is jU*. — Jurjani, 
while sometimes it is written both ways in the same MS. 

Since writing note 7 , at page 321, giving an account of 
the Amir, Mas’ud’s inroad into the northern parts of Ghur. 
when on his way from Ghaznin to Hirat, I have considered 
that the word given by our author referred to the tract of 
country described in that note as the Guzganan, or the 
Guzgans, by Tajziks, but which 'Arabs, and people of ’Arab 
descent, who use j — ^ — for the Tajzik g — ef — turn into 
Juzjanan, and that the word he uses in connexion with his 
own name refers to one of the Guzgans, and that he should 
be styled ‘the Guzgani ’ or ‘ Juzjani.’ As the most trust- 
worthy copies of the text, the best and most correctly 
written, had Jurjani, I considered it necessary to follow 
them as I had begun, and to mention the matter more in 
detail here in the Memoir of the Author’s life. 

Guzgan, as the native inhabitants styled it, or Juzjan, 
is not the name of a single town, village, or fortress, 



but one of the small districts or tracts of country among 
the mountains, on the north-west frontier of the country 
of Ghur. and north of Hirat, beyond the Murgh-Ab — the 
Jibal of Hirat, as he himself styles it — but its exact posi- 
tion, and the localities of most of the great fortresses 
mentioned by our author in the last Section of his 
work, are at present unknown to us. The Guzganan,or 
Guzgans were the appanage of the Amir, Muhammad, 
brother of Mas’ud ; and it was from thence that he was 
brought when he assumed the throne of Ghaznin after the 
death of his father. Notwithstanding the details which our 
author gives respecting the great fortresses of Ghur, Ghar- 
jistan, and other parts, including the fortress of Tulak, 
which appears to have been his own place of residence at 
the time, and also the home of his maternal relatives (see 
page 1066 and note 3 ), which he helped to defend against 
the Mu gh al invaders, and which must have been situated 
in one of the Guzgans, he never once, throughout his whole 
work, refers to Guzgan or Juzjan, except in connexion with 
his own name. See also notes to pages 186 and 232. 

After the Ghuris obtained possession of Lahor in 582 H., 
and they had seized the Sultan. Khusrau Malik, the last of 
the Sultans of Ghaznin, our author’s father was made Kazi 
of the Ghurian army stationed at, Lahor, under the Sipah- 
Salar, ’Ali-i-Kar-makh ; and twelve camels were assigned 
him for the conveyance of the establishment of his office, 
his tribunal, etc., on the line of march. 

Our author was born after this, in the year 589 H., the 
very year in which Dihli, of which, and of which Musalman 
kingdom, he was subsequently to become the chief Kazi and 
Sadr, was made the seat of the Musalman government in 
Hindustan by the Turk Mamluk, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who 
was, in after-years, to become its first Muhammadan Sultan. 
That our author was born at Lahor, as the Daghistani, re- 
ferred to farther on, asserts, cannot be correct ; for, from 
what he himself states respecting his arrival at U chch ah in 
624 H. [see pages 541 and 722], that was the first time he 
set foot in Hind. Had he been born at Lahor, he would, 
doubtless, have mentioned it, and he would probably have 
been styled and known as the Lahor! in consequence. 

The next mention he makes of his father is, that, when 



Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, ruler of Bamian and Tukharis- 
tan, succeeded his father on the throne, he desired that 
our author’s father, the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muham- 
mad, should take up his residence in his kingdom, and 
enter his service. With the sanction of his own sove- 
reign and patron, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam’s suzerain, 
namely, the Sultan of Ghur, Ghivas-ud-Din. Muhammad-i- 
Sam, the Maulana proceeded to the Court of Baha-ud-Din, 
Sam, and was made Kazi of the kingdom of Bamian and 
Tukharistan, with the judicial administration over its 
forces, was made censor, with full powers as regards eccle- 
siastical law, and intrusted with the charge of two colleges, 
and their funds. This happened in 591 H., when our 
author was in his third year. He states that the diploma 
conferring these offices upon his father, in the handwriting 
of the Wazir of the Bamian state, was still contained in the 
kharitah [a bag of embroidered silk for holding documents] 
containing his own diplomas, his banner, and turban of 

The mother of our author was the foster-sister and 
school-mate of the Princess, Mah Malik, the daughter of 
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, mention of 
which lady will be found in several places in the follow- 
ing pages; and his mother appears to have continued in 
her service after her marriage. Our author distinctly states 
that his early years were passed in the Haram of the 
Princess, until the period of his entering upon adolescence, 
when, according to Musalman usages, he had to be sent 
elsewhere. He speaks in terms of much gratitude of the 
fostering kindness and protection he received while dwell- 
ing in that Princess’s household. Under these circum- 
stances, Lahor can scarcely have been the place of his 

When Sultan Takish, Kh warazm Sh ah, withdrew his 
allegiance from the Khalifah, Un-Na§ir-ud-Din-Ullah, and 
the latter’s troops had been defeated by him, Ibn-ur-Rabbf, 
and Ibn-ul-Khatib, on two different occasions, came as 
envoys to the Courts of the Sultans of Gh ur and Gh,aznin, to 
demand aid from these monarchs against Sultan Takish. 
In consequence, the Imam, Shams-ud-Din, the Turk, and 
the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Tajzik, our